28 Days Later (2002)

[#Darren]

It's amazing to think that this was shot on standard def and shown on huge movie screens - must have looked like crap!

But the film is very good

[Lepidopterous]

This is one of my favorite films, and it was obviously made to look like that considering how it was shot, but concerning the review, I think a PQ score should be how good the quality of the picture is, not how good the quality of the transfer is. The reviewer did provide an explanation. But either way, if the movie was intended to have crappy quality, and the blu-ray displays the crappy quality perfectly, it is still crappy quality, and should be reflected in the quality score. That's my opinion.

[Blu-Jawa]

just wondering but is "28 Weeks" the same also? I am guessing yes.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

It would helpful to really know how great the PQ actually is since this is on Blu-ray and it does cost money to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray. If the PQ is only as great as the DVD version why I would want to upgrade.

If the PQ is rated based on the transfer alone, shouldn't there be a Transfer category?

No!

Film enthusiasts and professionals cherish Blu-ray not because it is capable of delivering crystal clear (or, better if you wish) images, but because it is capable of reproducing the director’s vision (and work) as best as possible, and in a manner no other commercial format is. With other words, when attempting to determine how good a Blu-ray transfer is, you should seek to determine how truthful it is to the original source it replicates, not how good it would look on your equipment. Finally, you should always keep in mind that aside from higher video resolution Blu-ray also allows for higher audio resolution.

Pro-B

[jw]

Originally Posted by Blu-Jawa

just wondering but is "28 Weeks" the same also? I am guessing yes.

no 28 weeks later is great, a total opposite
28 Weeks later


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...ow=screenshots

28 Days Later


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...ow=screenshots

[CheapChildren]

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

Actually a lot of old movies look good.
Casablanca, Blade Runner, Patton, etc.

Right, I was afraid someone would take my statement as slamming all older movie blu-rays. That's certainly not my belief. My point was that if all older movies were rated on the same bar as say a Pixar film it would not be a fair contest because the source material is not the same quality.

And by the way the Patton transfer is not very accurate.

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

If the PQ is rated base on the transfer alone, shouldn't there be a Transfer catagory?

You could say that. But my idea of good PQ is being comparable to source material. I think that's most reviewers mentality.

Now maybe an Eye-Candy category would be more appropriate.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by krylonman

Dude, they thoroughly explain the rating in the review. If you want to know about the picture quality, you've got to put in the effort of actually reading about it instead of just looking at the numerical score.


Edit: And I have to go through the effort of reading an entire thread. Someone already pointed this out. Heh. Irony?

Haha glad you pointed it out yourself +1 for you!

[VHS4Ever]

I guess if a movie was shot looking like this. "The way the director wanted." It will get a 5/5 for PQ right?.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by VHS4Ever

I guess if a movie has shot looking like this. "The way the director wanted." It will get a 5/5 for PQ right?.

Are you purposefully ignoring my and krylonman's replies? Please at least acknowledge that IF YOU HAD READ THE REVIEW, YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE PQ IS ABSOLUTE CRAP!.
But then again, it would be nice with an EYE CANDY rating...
But not entirely needed.

[Rhoq]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

This is one of my favorite films, and it was obviously made to look like that considering how it was shot, but concerning the review, I think a PQ score should be how good the quality of the picture is, not how good the quality of the transfer is.

As far as I'm concerned PQ = how true to the source material it is. In the case of 28 Days Later it's as perfect as it can get. Also, if you compare the Blu-ray to the DVD, there are some noticeable, but subtle, improvements in the PQ due to the increased resolution of the High Definition transfer. It's not as night and day as most other releases, but there is a definite improvement.

[jono_0101]

i thought it looked as good as i could have, and the sound was good too, i was not disappointed in the PQ, but that might be because i heard so much negative stuff about this BD before i bought it, but i love the movie, so i decided to buy it anyway

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

This is one of my favorite films, and it was obviously made to look like that considering how it was shot, but concerning the review, I think a PQ score should be how good the quality of the picture is, not how good the quality of the transfer is. The reviewer did provide an explanation. But either way, if the movie was intended to have crappy quality, and the blu-ray displays the crappy quality perfectly, it is still crappy quality, and should be reflected in the quality score. That's my opinion.

Ok what about the audio? Try this review https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...78&show=review
It's a review Of Ricky Martin's concert and the audio got the highest
rating. Now, I don't like Ricky's music at all for example, but the quality
of the audio was perfect, not the music itself, got it?

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by QQQQ!

Ok what about the audio? Try this review https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...78&show=review
It's a review Of Ricky Martin's concert and the audio got the highest
rating. Now, I don't like Ricky's music at all for example, but the quality
of the audio was perfect, not the music itself, got it?

Yea I see your point. It's just a matter of what readers want to see in the PQ score, the transfer quality or the picture/audio quality on a scale of today's standards.

But if the Ricky Martin concert were recorded using cheap sound equipment, and it can only sound so great no matter how good the transfer is, any other 5 star blu-ray would put it to shame. The Ricky Martin concert was probably audibly impressive at today's standards. Compare 28 Days Later to other films made around the same time with a 4.5 as well, and it does not match up because it's not potentially visually impressive to start with...

[aiman04]

If the OP use a PS3, it could be that he set the BD audio setting to PCM but use optical connection. Optical can't carry uncompressed multichannel PCM, it will be downmixed to strereo.

[klauswhereareyou]

I don't own this on blu ray, but I do own the dvd, and watched it again for the first time since getting an HD television. It appears that the transfer on the dvd is actually a film print (the DV image was transfered to film for release). Does anyone know if the bluray is the same, or if it's actually direct from the DV cameras?

[gill08]

I think the sound is very inconsistent. I've had to adjust the sound many of times to make sure I didn't blow out my speakers. They would softly speak and whisper so I would have to turn the volume up to hear and then a bomb goes off or someone screams and its way to laud.

[Brady_2_Moss]

were using a DV

[Visco.]

It's funny because the last 10 minutes of the film look absolutely stunning.

[Zero_Cool]

Originally Posted by Visco.

It's funny because the last 10 minutes of the film look absolutely stunning.

I think it was shot differently.

[Visco.]

Originally Posted by Zero_Cool

I think it was shot differently.

One would figure.