Freddy vs. Jason Blu-ray

[Blu Titan]

Well, I finally got my copy! Went to the same Best Buy store I tried yesterday and found someone very helpful. He went to the back and found Freddy! The girl in the register was another story. I showed her the print out from Walmart's site, and asked for a price match. She said sorry, but the Blu-ray on the ad says "widescreen" and the one your are buying is not widescreen. I explained to her a little, and she was convinced.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by mj79

really?? Id say MAYbe 3/5.. its descent from far away, but when i paused it, and looked close it was fuzzy , blotchy and a little grainy..basically like watching the pq of a upscaled dvd

Usually if i pause a blu ray ( new ones especially ) i can damn near put my nose on the screen and not see any imperfections, just crystal clear

Do you normally watch movies on Pause? Didn't think so. The PQ on this is fantastic.

[mj79]

Originally Posted by benricci

Do you normally watch movies on Pause? Didn't think so. The PQ on this is fantastic.

well i usually dont watch them on pause, no.. but i just wanted to point out the difference in the pq and overall crispness, and clarity between this and others.. So basically putting it on pause and seeing if there is any wash, or a fuzzy image, is kind of a good way to tell how well the detail pq is...

So why is it then that most of the new BR's have such a bright crisp pq that if you wanted to could watch from 3 feet away and have a flawless picture, but on one like this you see the image is broken up, and like i said, blotchy, .. like a dvd..

Lil FYI.. i paused it cuz i saw something i had not seen on a BR before.. image blur

[benricci]

Originally Posted by mj79

So basically putting it on pause and seeing if there is any wash, or a fuzzy image, is kind of a good way to tell how well the detail pq is...

It's actually the most inaccurate way to judge picture quality since the image is not in motion as intended. Picture quality is not meant to be critiqued based upon still images, since the grain pattern and image structure changes from frame to frame.

A visual anomaly or perceived "flaw" in a paused image may have no effect on the actual image quality during playback.

[mj79]

Originally Posted by benricci

It's actually the most inaccurate way to judge picture quality since the image is not in motion as intended. Picture quality is not meant to be critiqued based upon still images, since the grain pattern and image structure changes from frame to frame.

so in sense, how come if i pause ironman, darknight, wall-e etc.. it looks like a 10 megapixel still, camera shot and crystal clear.. Not only that but the pq while actually playing is much sharper/crisper, etc.. like a blu ray should be..

I think people are judging the PQ of this movie based alone on what it is... A semi low budget horror flick from 10 years ago... Not what a true BR should look like for todays standards..

Not saying it isn't a good pq, but just not to todays standards i guess.. this makes alot more sense in my head before it gets typed out

[Irrob]

Originally Posted by benricci

Do you normally watch movies on Pause? Didn't think so.

[MaCruz]

I got mine from Amazon yesterday, and I'll try to watch it this weekend.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by mj79

so in sense, how come if i pause ironman, darknight, wall-e etc.. it looks like a 10 megapixel still, camera shot and crystal clear.. Not only that but the pq while actually playing is much sharper/crisper, etc.. like a blu ray should be..

Iron Man has visible grain, TDK has EE and DNR, and Wall-E is full-CG.

What the hell is "camera shot" supposed to mean? Like a still photograph? Still photographs all have grain and still photographs can be soft focused or lose detail for one reason or another.

BBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUT

Whoever said it was right. You can't judge a MOTION PICTURE from a STILL. Not just because it's unreasonable, but also because of the fact that the video is compressed and is NOT INTENDED to be viewed as stills. It is entirely possible that a film on BD may look TERRIBLE on freezeframe, but look great in motion. For example, Ghostbusters has tons of grain, and in motion, it looks great. But try pausing it and it looks like a jumbled mess. It's because it's not supposed to be seen in that way.

Not what a true BR should look like for todays standards..

All movies look different. You can't hold up Iron Man and say "it should look like Wall-E". No, Iron Man has grain and was photographed on 35mm film, while Wall-E exists solely in the digital realm. TDK was shot on IMAX and heavily processed 35mm, so you can't hold that up as an example of what ALL movies should look like. Movies are shot on different conditions, on different media, with different crews, and with DIFFERENT INTENDED LOOKS.

I haven't watched my copy of this flick yet, just speaking of this argument in general. You can't judge a movie's picture quality by a still. A still can be used as an example of a problem (such as if a reviewer wanted to point out the EE in TDK, they might use this screencap), but just because a still looks bad doesn't mean it necessarily looks bad in motion.

[Kryptonic]

Just finished watching my copy of FvJ and thought it looked spectacular. Very filmlike transfer and the TrueHD sound was very dynamic.

[mj79]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Iron Man has visible grain, TDK has EE and DNR, and Wall-E is full-CG.

What the hell is "camera shot" supposed to mean? Like a still photograph? Still photographs all have grain and still photographs can be soft focused or lose detail for one reason or another.

BBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUT

Whoever said it was right. You can't judge a MOTION PICTURE from a STILL. Not just because it's unreasonable, but also because of the fact that the video is compressed and is NOT INTENDED to be viewed as stills. It is entirely possible that a film on BD may look TERRIBLE on freezeframe, but look great in motion. For example, Ghostbusters has tons of grain, and in motion, it looks great. But try pausing it and it looks like a jumbled mess. It's because it's not supposed to be seen in that way.


All movies look different. You can't hold up Iron Man and say "it should look like Wall-E". No, Iron Man has grain and was photographed on 35mm film, while Wall-E exists solely in the digital realm. TDK was shot on IMAX and heavily processed 35mm, so you can't hold that up as an example of what ALL movies should look like. Movies are shot on different conditions, on different media, with different crews, and with DIFFERENT INTENDED LOOKS.

I haven't watched my copy of this flick yet, just speaking of this argument in general. You can't judge a movie's picture quality by a still. A still can be used as an example of a problem (such as if a reviewer wanted to point out the EE in TDK, they might use this screencap), but just because a still looks bad doesn't mean it necessarily looks bad in motion.

i wasn't judging by the still.. I already said that.. I said i actually paused it cuz it looked grainy and not like the blu rays i was used to.. I know all films are shot in different ways, just thought overall the pq is not where 90% of the other BR's I have seen but some ppl are praising the pQ like it IS a dark knight or iron man.. thats all

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by awesomest cory

Same thing happened to me. So much for amazon prime two-day shipping arrival

love your avatar!

[Irrob]

Originally Posted by mj79

i wasn't judging by the still.. I already said that.. I said i actually paused it cuz it looked grainy and not like the blu rays i was used to.. I know all films are shot in different ways, just thought overall the pq is not where 90% of the other BR's I have seen but some ppl are praising the pQ like it IS a dark knight or iron man.. thats all

I get the feeling from you that if it doesn't look like Iron Man or have that CGI sheen like Pixar films then it's not a top quality release. I got news for you. The Godfather PQ is as good if not better than Iron Man. I'll leave it at that.

[mj79]

Originally Posted by Irrob

I get the feeling from you that if it doesn't look like Iron Man or have that CGI sheen like Pixar films then it's not a top quality release. I got news for you. The Godfather PQ is as good if not better than Iron Man. I'll leave it at that.

but is it better than kung fu panda

[QuasidodoJr]

There were a few interior scenes that fell a bit on the soft side, but there wasn't a single instance of edge enhancement. If any DNR was used, it was done so judiciously, because there were no waxy faces or smeared images. Overall, a very good transfer. Not top tier, but more than worth $10.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by mj79

i wasn't judging by the still.. I already said that.. I said i actually paused it cuz it looked grainy and not like the blu rays i was used to.. I know all films are shot in different ways, just thought overall the pq is not where 90% of the other BR's I have seen but some ppl are praising the pQ like it IS a dark knight or iron man.. thats all

TDK is nothing to look up to. Like I said, all of the 35mm material has DNR and EE on it. DNR, if you don't know, is basically when the picture is softened so that grain isn't visible (and even fine detail gets softened), and EE is when they attempt to apply an optical illusion effect to edges which make the picture appear to be more resolved even when it's not. Read this and this.

Iron Man IS something to look up to though, but that said, Iron Man has plenty of grain too! Grain is not something bad, it's something inherent to ALL film. If a Blu-ray has no grain, it's because:

#1: The grain is too fine to resolve at Blu-ray's "low" resolution. This is the case with basically anything shot on 70mm or IMAX, including TDK's IMAX footage. Some modern 35mm films on BD have little to no visible grain because of this as well.
#2: It was digitally scrubbed out to the detriment of overall picture quality. I hear that this is the case with Gladiator's lack of grain, as well as a myriad of other catalog titles that have been released that use old DVD masters in 1080p.
#3: It's fully digital, either computer generated or shot on digital cameras. Kung Fu Panda or Crank are good examples of this.

And yes, if you paused the movie to judge the picture, you WERE looking at a still to judge the picture of the movie. If it looks good in motion, that's all that matters. Did you not see my example about Ghostbusters? I'm sure that thing has more grain than this, and despite the fact that it looks good in motion, stills look terrible.

[MikeDaWiz]

I had originally preordered freddy vs jason and the quick and the dead and it said it wouldnt ship till the 14th. I decided to cancel it cause i found out that walmart had fvj on sale for 10 dollars. easier for me.

[Stephan.klose]

Does anyone know by now if this title is Regionfree or coded?

It's out for nearly a week now and still nobody knows..

[antonego2008]

Post pictures from the blu-ray people!

Doesn't take that long.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Irrob

I get the feeling from you that if it doesn't look like Iron Man or have that CGI sheen like Pixar films then it's not a top quality release. I got news for you. The Godfather PQ is as good if not better than Iron Man. I'll leave it at that.

You are 100% correct! As far as freddy very Jason the PQ is very very good. Lots of detail and excellent contrast. The AQ is very impressive with the surround speakers getting plenty of action.

[Irrob]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

You are 100% correct! As far as freddy vs Jason the PQ is very very good. Lots of detail and excellent contrast. The AQ is very impressive with the surround speakers getting plenty of action.

Excellent. Finally a mini review from a dependable source. Thanks.