any early reviews on King Kong blu ray yet?

[lgans316]

Version: U.S.A / Universal / Region A, B, C
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
VC-1 BD-50 / Advanced Profile 3
Disc size: 38,80 GB
Total bit rate: 24.68 Mbps
Subtitles: English SDH / French / Spanish

************************************************** ************

Version: Extended cut
Running time: 37,05 GB
Feature size: 38,80 GB
Average video bit rate: 16.33 Mbps
Number of chapters: 53

DTS-HD Master Audio English 4177 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 4177 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
DTS Audio French 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio Spanish 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround
DTS Express English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / 24-bit

************************************************** ************

Version: Theatrical cut
Running time: 3:07:22
Feature size: 34,82 GB
Average video bit rate: 16.41 Mbps

DTS-HD Master Audio English 4163 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 4163 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
DTS Audio French 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio Spanish 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround
DTS Express English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / 24-bit

************************************************** ************

#Audio Commentary
#U-Control - BonusView
#My Scenes
#BD-Live enabled

11 GB of space left but no extras.

The pics in the comparison PIX thread are cropped and zoomed. There is another thread at AVS that offers better comparison and in this thread you can clearly infer that the BD displays slightly more details than the HD DVD.

[derelicte]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

Any chance we'll see another version down the road with all the special features?

Oh, more than likely... It's Peter Jackson, after all. Although, given that I own the previous incarnations (theatrical, 3-disc extended - even the box set of the production diaries), I likely won't upgrade when it does come out. Special features are nice, but I don't NEED to have them in HD...

As for Kong vs Braveheart. Braveheart is undoubtedly the "better movie" - but King Kong will likely get much more demo and/or replay action in my HT...

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by lgans316

There is another thread at AVS that offers better comparison and in this thread you can clearly infer that the BD displays slightly more details than the HD DVD.

I disagree with this statement. I would call it a draw. In some shots, the HD-DVD has a slight advantage, and in some shots the BR has a slight advantage. The biggest dif between the two to my eyes is the saturation level with the HD-DVD having more saturated colors. I would not call this better or worse however just dif. They both look fantastic and again I would call it even. To say you can "clearly infer that the BD displays slightly more details" is VERY misleading as it depends on the shot.

[HeavyHitter]

The reality is, Blu-ray players have been able to evolve in terms of PQ/processing and will give a slightly better 1080p/24 image than a Toshiba HD DVD player which was never able reach that level because of its short lifespan. Therefore, if you are using a newer BD player, that too should give it an edge.

Last year, I compared my Panasonic BD30 and Toshiba A30 using the same Warner movie/encode in both units A/Bing and the BD30 was very slightly better at 1080p/24. I'm now using the BD35 which is a hair better than the BD30.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I disagree with this statement. I would call it a draw. In some shots, the HD-DVD has a slight advantage, and in some shots the BR has a slight advantage. The biggest dif between the two to my eyes is the saturation level with the HD-DVD having more saturated colors. I would not call this better or worse however just dif. They both look fantastic and again I would call it even. To say you can "clearly infer that the BD displays slightly more details" is VERY misleading as it depends on the shot.

For lgans to actually say that... I figure it must be there. They're obviously different encodes (hence the higher bitrate and filesize here on the BD) and obviously are both great so... what's it matter?

[jimmirehman]

for those interested:

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by aramis109

For lgans to actually say that... I figure it must be there. They're obviously different encodes (hence the higher bitrate and filesize here on the BD) and obviously are both great so... what's it matter?

You can choose to take Igans or anyone elses word for law if you like, but I will use my own eyes Also, the general opinion is that it is a draw. Quite a few think the HD-DVD looks better with its more saturated colors and some think the BR is a bit better, but most feel it is a draw.

In the end though, it doesnt matter as both look great. My only point was it is simply false to claim that the BR is considered better as a universal rule since there are mixed opinions and the general consensus has been that it is a tie.

My opinion by the way is I like both of them and will be double dipping for the EE and DTS-MA. I cant make out a clear winner though as far as PQ as it is that close to my eyes.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The reality is, Blu-ray players have been able to evolve in terms of PQ/processing and will give a slightly better 1080p/24 image than a Toshiba HD DVD player which was never able reach that level because of its short lifespan. Therefore, if you are using a newer BD player, that too should give it an edge.

Last year, I compared my Panasonic BD30 and Toshiba A30 using the same Warner movie/encode in both units A/Bing and the BD30 was very slightly better at 1080p/24. I'm now using the BD35 which is a hair better than the BD30.

I dont agree with this either, but I respect your opinion. I have done an A/B/C with my BD30/A35/PS3 and I found no dif at all at 1080/24p on my 94" screen.

[fdm]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I dont agree with this either, but I respect your opinion. I have done an A/B/C with my BD30/A35/PS3 and I found no dif at all at 1080/24p on my 94" screen.

Yeah, pretty sure the A30 was not the end-all be-all of hd-dvd players. (The XA-2 (generation 2) and/or the A35 (generation last) took that "honor".)

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by fdm

Yeah, pretty sure the A30 was not the end-all be-all of hd-dvd players. (The XA-2 (generation 2) and/or the A35 (generation last) took that "honor".)

Agreed. The interesting thing is I DID find a dif with 1080/24p between the XA2 (which I also owned) and the A35 with the A35 doing the better job. The XA2 did not do a true 24p from what I have read (the FW update to give that player 24p always seemed a bit suspect to me) and it is evident when doing a comparison with a player that does do proper 24p such as the BD30, PS3 and A35. The XA2 was certainly not bad for 1080/24p, just not quite up to par with a true 24p output unit. Of course the XA2 had its own strengths (Reon) and the build quality was second to none at the time.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by fdm

Yeah, pretty sure the A30 was not the end-all be-all of hd-dvd players. (The XA-2 (generation 2) and/or the A35 (generation last) took that "honor".)

The A30 and A35 used identical chipsets far as video. The A35 would bitstream advanced audio where as the A30 only did internal decoding. As mentioned, the XA2 didn't really read 1080p/24 off the disc; it would decode 1080i and deinterlace it to 1080p/24 with an eventual firmware.

[ajgoodfella7]

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1943/kingkong2005.html

Here's another good review.

[BigNickUK]

Tower.com sent it out well early and thanks to their amazing international post I received it this morning in the UK.
I have watched some of the Extended version and I was quite simply blown away. In my view this is demo material without a doubt. The colours and detail are just phenomenal and it is so far above the SD version as to be unbelievable.
As for the sound...pheww!!! Just wait til you get to the scene on the ship where they first approach the island. The foghorn sent shivers up my spine.
Watching the insect attack scene was hard enough in the theatre and on the SD release but on Blu it is absolutely stomach churning. The only downside with getting it so early is the BDLive was not enabled (although I am not sure if it will work in UK).
Absolutely highly recommended!!!

[Eagle_23]

IGN King Kong review: http://bluray.ign.com/articles/945/945446p1.html

PQ 9/10, AQ 9/10

It's a real shame though there's no real special feature like they had with LotR. As this is the type of movie I'm always interested in watching in terms of how it all came together.

[derelicte]

Originally Posted by Eagle_23

It's a real shame though there's no real special feature like they had with LotR. As this is the type of movie I'm always interested in watching in terms of how it all came together.

There's PLENTY of information in previous DVD incarnations - but it's a shame it's not all packaged together in this blu-ray release. What's wrong with releasing a movie-only and a separate multi-disc edition with all the extras?! Give us the choice now instead of tempting a double-dip later!

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by ajgoodfella7

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1943/kingkong2005.html

Here's another good review.

1.5 stars for the movie. Good ol' Bracke.

[robertc88]

I personally don't have enough time to watch what I have and what new ones come out. I'd like to do comparisons for curiousity but not for this one. Very happy with the HD DVD.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

1.5 stars for the movie. Good ol' Bracke.

Utterly ridiculous review. Yes the movie is long and the effects are over indulgent but giving this movie a 1.5 is flat out irresponsible.

[Breakpoint25]

I saw a trailer for this on my PS3 and boy did it look amazing in Blu-Ray!

[goshikisen]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Utterly ridiculous review. Yes the movie is long and the effects are over indulgent but giving this movie a 1.5 is flat out irresponsible.

Bracke says that Kong always looks like a "digital creation" in the film. I thought the CGI Kong was the singlemost amazing digital creation I'd ever seen on film... above and beyond the triumph that is Gollum. Peter Bracke is entitled to his opinion but it's apparent that he lacks imagination.