28 Days Later - PQ

[Silverwing]

Originally Posted by Bilbo Baggins

Sry for reviving an old thread, but I just bought & watched this for the first time on BR, and the hideousness of the PQ will haunt me for all time.

I never did understand the hate or the denial of the fact that it was the directors intent to shoot it this way. He even explains why he shot the parts with the 35mm. I for one like and appreciate the movie a LOT more due to it being shot this way, and I commend the reviewer for giving the video quality for this the rating it deserves.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Yeah, I love the movie that's why I bought it, but, for me, the picture quality made it unbearable to watch on BR. YMMV.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Bilbo Baggins

Yeah, I love the movie that's why I bought it, but, for me, the picture quality made it unbearable to watch on BR. YMMV.

You should've seen it projected in the theater. I remember a woman behind me complaining about how bad the PQ looked. But what an impact it made when it switched to 35mm!!

[teamneedle]

I have always been curious about something, and have never got a decent answer-

When this was showin it theaters back in 02 it was printed to film- due to a very limited about of digital projection back then-

so my question is, i wonder if the Blu-ray master is a straight digital upscale or if it was scanned from a print-

I would actually think it would be easier for fox to scan it since it has the 35mm aspects at the end-

what are your thoughts?

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

You should've seen it projected in the theater. I remember a woman behind me complaining about how bad the PQ looked. But what an impact it made when it switched to 35mm!!

I hate reading people complain about all the "defects" blu-ray can show in an image... often using it as an excuse for why 'horror' films need not be on BD... it never seems to cross their mind that theatrically these films have a resolution much much higher than BD.

In the case of 28 Days Later, however, it is an ugly film no matter how you cut it. The BD replicates that perfectly. It's a great presentation of the film.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

In the case of 28 Days Later, however, it is an ugly film no matter how you cut it. The BD replicates that perfectly. It's a great presentation of the film.

Yeah, I'm not convinced. I get the bit about the gritty quality of the image due to how it was shot, but I think in addition to that the image has been processed with edge enhancement, which makes it look even worse. I hadn't seen this BD transfer before this, but I'm just now comparing the BD with the DVD on the same equipment, and there's definitely haloing, motion and colour blur and a general aliased fuzziness around the edges of almost any colour differential on-screen, way beyond what appears in the DVD image. In fact, on my screen, the BD often looks like an over-duped VHS.

If Sony had directly encoded the camcorder image to the Blu, I could possibly understand the claim of "this is what the director intended" (remembering he made that comment about the DVD, not the BD transfer). But comparing it to the DVD, I don't think that's what Sony did.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Yeah, I'm not convinced. I get the bit about the gritty quality of the image due to how it was shot, but I think in addition to that the image has been processed with edge enhancement, which makes it look even worse. I hadn't seen this BD transfer before this, but I'm just now comparing the BD with the DVD on the same equipment, and there's definitely haloing, motion and colour blur and a general aliased fuzziness around the edges of almost any colour differential on-screen, way beyond what appears in the DVD image. In fact, on my screen, the BD often looks like an over-duped VHS.

If Sony had directly encoded the camcorder image to the Blu, I could possibly understand the claim of "this is what the director intended" (remembering he made that comment about the DVD, not the BD transfer). But comparing it to the DVD, I don't think that's what Sony did.

Sony didn't have anything to do with the transfer.

The problem with your comparison between the BD and the DVD is that you're assuming that the DVD is the basis for comparison. What documentation do you have that the DVD accurately matches and represents the director-approved master that the theatrical prints were made from?

The movie I saw in the theater was also plagued with edge enhancement, haloing and other issues including over-saturation in some scenes. It was meant to look like crap until you get to the final scene. The final scene on the BD blows away the PQ on the DVD.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Sony didn't have anything to do with the transfer.

My mistake. I was thinking it was a Sony disc, and didn't check when I posted. It's Fox. (But you knew that, I'm sure. Gotta love people who think being smart-arse and scoring cheap points off someone is the way to have a conversation on the internet.)

The problem with your comparison between the BD and the DVD is that you're assuming that the DVD is the basis for comparison. What documentation do you have that the DVD accurately matches and represents the director-approved master that the theatrical prints were made from?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The DVD has a commentary from Boyle saying something to the effect of "This is exactly how I wanted the film to look", so what other "documentation" are you expecting?

It was meant to look like crap until you get to the final scene.

No, it was meant to look rough and gritty. That's a whole different thing. But I already acknowledged that. Again, what's your point?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

My mistake. I was thinking it was a Sony disc, and didn't check when I posted. It's Fox. (But you knew that, I'm sure. Gotta love people who think being smart-arse and scoring cheap points off someone is the way to have a conversation on the internet.)

I wasn't being a smart ass, I was letting you know that Sony is not the company you want to take issue with for the transfer.

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The DVD has a commentary from Boyle saying something to the effect of "This is exactly how I wanted the film to look", so what other "documentation" are you expecting?

When Boyle says that it's exactly how he wanted the movie to look, he's not referring to the PQ of the DVD. He's referring to the picture quality of the movie in general. When he recorded his commentary, it's very unlikely that he was viewing the movie from a DVD (they don't typically author and press DVDs first, only to have to redo them to include the commentary track). So my point is, you're suggesting that the movie on BD looks bad for some other reason than what was intended because it doesn't look like the DVD. But why are you assuming that the DVD is the reference? And why would you assume that the deep compression of the DVD wouldn't soften the edge enhancement the same way it does film grain?

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

No, it was meant to look rough and gritty. That's a whole different thing. But I already acknowledged that. Again, what's your point?

If you acknowledge that the movie is supposed to look rough and gritty, and you know the movie was shot on standard definition mini DV and that nothing will ever make it look better, then what's your point?

The final scene was the only scene in the movie to be shot on film. So it looks immaculate. It did in the theater, and it does on the BD.

[Jhouston]

Yeah man I got this a little while ago and finally got around to watching bits and pieces. This BR is undoubtedly worse than the dvd. Out of some of the worse BR's I have seen,this ranks among the absolute worse in terms of PQ.

I actually prefer watching the dvd version as apposed to the BR.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Jhouston

Yeah man I got this a little while ago and finally got around to watching bits and pieces. This BR is undoubtedly worse than the dvd. Out of some of the worse BR's I have seen,this ranks among the absolute worse in terms of PQ.

I actually prefer watching the dvd version as apposed to the BR.

Well, no matter what you do 576p is going to look like crap on a 1080p display.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

I saw this for sale on Target's website for 7.99

[ImportFanatic]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Well, no matter what you do 576p is going to look like crap on a 1080p display.

The source is actually about half the resolution of 576p...

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ImportFanatic

The source is actually about half the resolution of 576p...

I remember now. They shot it on some cheap handheld camera.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

But why are you assuming that the DVD is the reference? And why would you assume that the deep compression of the DVD wouldn't soften the edge enhancement the same way it does film grain?

I never said it was a reference of any kind. I said that the picture looks worse on BD than it does on DVD, and there are artefacts visible on the BD image that don't appear on the DVD. Please try to understand what I'm saying before telling me what I'm allegedly assuming.

If you acknowledge that the movie is supposed to look rough and gritty, and you know the movie was shot on standard definition mini DV and that nothing will ever make it look better, then what's your point?

Sigh. Okay, you seem to want to be argumentative, and are simply manufacturing points to cavil over. There's a difference between the image looking deliberately gritty, as the DVD does, and the apparent artefacts of image manipulation that are present on the BD. As I've already said.

I stated what I saw in the image, and my reasons for being disappointed. If your experience is different, fine; you're entitled to state your point of view, of course. But please don't take the tiresome and juvenile route of reframing what I've said to pretend it's nonsensical.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I remember now. They shot it on some cheap handheld camera.

It was hardly cheap for a standard definition camera.

http://www.soadv.com/Merchant2/merch...Category_Code=

[Dotpattern]

Dude, calm down. It's called a conversation. If you don't want people to comment on your post then don't post. If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, then say that. Otherwise, people have every right to comment on your posts in a public forum.

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I never said it was a reference of any kind. I said that the picture looks worse on BD than it does on DVD, and there are artefacts visible on the BD image that don't appear on the DVD. Please try to understand what I'm saying before telling me what I'm allegedly assuming.

And as I already stated, those artifacts existed in the version I saw projected in the theater. So in my opinion, the BD accurately reflects the look intended by Danny Boyle. And, as I already stated, it's possible those artifacts aren't as apparent on the DVD due to the compression of a standard definition medium which doesn't lend itself to as much detail.

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Sigh. Okay, you seem to want to be argumentative, and are simply manufacturing points to cavil over. There's a difference between the image looking deliberately gritty, as the DVD does, and the apparent artefacts of image manipulation that are present on the BD. As I've already said.

How is that manufacturing points when I'm directly addressing yours?

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I stated what I saw in the image, and my reasons for being disappointed. If your experience is different, fine; you're entitled to state your point of view, of course. But please don't take the tiresome and juvenile route of reframing what I've said to pretend it's nonsensical.

You also stated you doubted that the BD accurately represents the intended look of the movie, based on the comparison you made on the DVD. I've stated how that's not a fair comparison. How is that reframing what you said? All your comments are still posted here. Go back and read them before you start calling people juvenile. If you can't handle a little discussion, especially when I've said nothing offensive or anything personally directed at you, then stay off the internet.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Jhouston

I actually prefer watching the dvd version as apposed to the BR.

That's how I feel about Apollo 13.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

So it's not worth the blu ray upgrade if you already own the dvd?

[Zero_Cool]

Originally Posted by Michael Bay Fan

So it's not worth the blu ray upgrade if you already own the dvd?

Not at all. It looks so bad. Well to me it did. I would keep the dvd and put it in a blu-ray case.