Dawn of the Dead

[Freebster2007]

Peter at highdefdigest gave it a
3 out of 5 for video
2.5 out of 5 for audio
3 for extras
1/2 out of 5 for high def extras

Creepy huh?
I thought it was a 4 out of 5 transfer

[Xerious]

Originally Posted by Freebster2007

Peter at highdefdigest gave it a
3 out of 5 for video
2.5 out of 5 for audio
3 for extras
1/2 out of 5 for high def extras

Creepy huh?
I thought it was a 4 out of 5 transfer

stop reading that garbage. he's no more an expert than a porn addict is a certified gynocologist. just an av nerd with nothing better to do than promote a retarded format.

[Razzy]

"The most prevalent problems are inconsistent grain spiking, contrast wavering, and motion blurring. Not a knock on the transfer per se, but the sharper resolution also reveals deficiencies in the practical effects and makeup application that I hadn't noticed with previous releases. "

So he's complaining the higher resolution shows off makeup imperfections and poor effects? I mean damn, it was 1978 and low budget for crying out loud.

[Deciazulado]

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by Razzy

So he's complaining the higher resolution shows off makeup imperfections and poor effects? I mean damn, it was 1978 and low budget for crying out loud.

Yeah, I can see the makeup line on a news anchor's face in HD OTA. I guess there's such a thing as Too-High-Definition?

[Amel]

Originally Posted by Freebster2007

Peter at highdefdigest gave it a
3 out of 5 for video
2.5 out of 5 for audio
3 for extras
1/2 out of 5 for high def extras

Creepy huh?
I thought it was a 4 out of 5 transfer

I agree with this

I've seen the movie, the audio is not impressive, but I did not expect more...

[Jim L]

I've stopped giving any weight to his reviews because of the following:

1. He routinely gives a pass to Warner for their bit-starved VC-1 "smoothies". Lots of 5's and 4.5's going out to crappy titles, some of which are old.
2. He can't seem to ever give Sony any much above a 4, even on brand-new high-bit AVC transfers that are stunning
3. He lets his own tastes in film style influence the review of the transfer. He hates grain in general and special photographic techniques that are the choice of the director.

For example, he even gave Fantastic Four: Silver Surfer only a 4.5 whereas he gave Warner's A Scanner Darkly a 5.

FF:SS is probably in the top 10 of all high-def transfers on either format.

A Scanner Darkly is bit-starved and has posterization, banding, and pixelization all over the place if you know where to look for it. I dumped that piece of rubbish months ago.

Unbelievable. He's a codec bigot.

[SS316SRV]

For a 1978 independent horror movie made for the same amount that Alex Rodriguez makes in 6 innings, the video is really damn impressive and the sound quality is pretty darn sharp. The point of this movie was not to make a technically impressive film with amazing picture and audio quality. The content of this movie is what is important. The picture and audio quality is more than ample in getting the point across.

[cathexist]

I'm still waiting for my copy of Day/Dawn of the Dead in the mail...I bought them because I am a fan and never purchased the DVD releases.

Honestly, in this case...I am looking forward to the fact that the HD version shows enough detail to reveal how low of a budget this thing really was on. I will get a little more comic relief out of it.

Originally Posted by Razzy

"The most prevalent problems are inconsistent grain spiking, contrast wavering, and motion blurring. Not a knock on the transfer per se, but the sharper resolution also reveals deficiencies in the practical effects and makeup application that I hadn't noticed with previous releases. "

So he's complaining the higher resolution shows off makeup imperfections and poor effects? I mean damn, it was 1978 and low budget for crying out loud.

[Xerious]

The movie is a CLASSIC zombie flick... the fans will appreciate this more than any AV nerd will. It's satirical horror, not a brute slasher with arbitarary boobs here and there. Romero was working off a limited budget as well. If anything the PQ of this transfer is FLAWLESS (I dare not use the P word because that's what the DUDers use)

[Knight-Errant]

Well I watched both this and Day of the Dead and enjoyed the heck out of em.

[Belloche]

For all of you villagers grabbing their torches and pitchforks i would like to take a moment to point out that Peter Bracke did not reveiw this movie. Check the reveiw again.

[zombieking]

It was Kenneth Brown that wrote the review, not Bracke. And if you really like the film, then no review should sway you from purchasing it. I'm awaiting this one and Day. Just think of it as buying a classic movie on the current best possible format right now.

[Clark Kent]

One notices a pattern with the two reviewers at High Def Digest. On important titles on the HD-DVD side they almost always overrate them while trashing the catalog titles that almost no one buys anyway.

But on the Blu-ray side they always seem to find problems with the major releases(and Dawn of the Dead is a major Blu-ray exclusive even though it's a catalog title) while praising the catalog titles that have very little selling power. I believe it's a strategy of hoping to keep both audiences but hoping to influence sales in favor of HD-DVD.

I'm really not sure how their reviews became the standard on the internet. Their review tastes clearly don't align with their target audience and technically Bracke is a poor reviewer. Brown isn't much better either...

[MrVorhees]

Originally Posted by Jim L

I've stopped giving any weight to his reviews because of the following:

1. He routinely gives a pass to Warner for their bit-starved VC-1 "smoothies". Lots of 5's and 4.5's going out to crappy titles, some of which are old.
2. He can't seem to ever give Sony any much above a 4, even on brand-new high-bit AVC transfers that are stunning
3. He lets his own tastes in film style influence the review of the transfer. He hates grain in general and special photographic techniques that are the choice of the director.

For example, he even gave Fantastic Four: Silver Surfer only a 4.5 whereas he gave Warner's A Scanner Darkly a 5.

FF:SS is probably in the top 10 of all high-def transfers on either format.

A Scanner Darkly is bit-starved and has posterization, banding, and pixelization all over the place if you know where to look for it. I dumped that piece of rubbish months ago.

Unbelievable. He's a codec bigot.

FINALY someone who i agree with!!!

Nice FACTS m8! Too bad there are too many blind......

[mrnamham]

I thought it was a reasonable transfer and rate it 4 too

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by mrnamham

I thought it was a reasonable transfer and rate it 4 too

Nice thread resurrection.

If you are 4K capable, the UK Second Sight 4K set is region free (except the extras BD) and makes this transfer look like second generation VHS. The Blu-ray sets from them are region b locked, but surely smoke the Anchor Bay BD too if you're region free. All 3 cuts in beautiful 4K, I'm shocked that the US disc still holds any value.

[trentdiesel]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

Nice thread resurrection.

If you are 4K capable, the UK Second Sight 4K set is region free (except the extras BD) and makes this transfer look like second generation VHS. The Blu-ray sets from them are region b locked, but surely smoke the Anchor Bay BD too if you're region free. All 3 cuts in beautiful 4K, I'm shocked that the US disc still holds any value.

Might be a record. Surprised it's a new member sock account.