Small complaint about a couple video quality scores I disagree with

[cakefoo]

Both are DNR'd and edge-enhanced, yet 40-Year gets a VQ score of 3.5, and U-571 gets a 4.5. High scores for what looks like super-upconverted DVD. Movies should get deducted 2-3 points for resorting to this kind of artificial enhancement.

40 Year Old Virgin review | U-571 review

[spolcyc]

Originally Posted by cakefoo

Both are DNR'd and edge-enhanced, yet 40-Year gets a VQ score of 3.5, and U-571 gets a 4.5. High scores for what looks like super-upconverted DVD. Movies should get deducted 2-3 points for resorting to this kind of artificial enhancement.

40 Year Old Virgin review | U-571 review

If you think those are bad, check out the Transformers review and try to tell me the fanboys aren't biased.

[mrgreed202]

Well considering reviews are based off of personal opinions... it doesnt really matter.

[jw]

question

response

insight from Josh

[alexakajeff]

The Saws were absolutely AMAZING and they gave it a small amount of PQ. So I'm with you.

[jw]

Originally Posted by alexakajeff

The Saws were absolutely AMAZING and they gave it a small amount of PQ. So I'm with you.

You dont have a clue, do you?
What do the Saw Quadrilogy have to do with the OP's topic?

Both are DNR'd and edge-enhanced, yet 40-Year gets a VQ score of 3.5, and U-571 gets a 4.5. High scores for what looks like super-upconverted DVD. Movies should get deducted 2-3 points for resorting to this kind of artificial enhancement.

40 Year Old Virgin review | U-571 review

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

If you think those are bad, check out the Transformers review and try to tell me the fanboys aren't biased.

What's wrong with Transformers?

[arush5268d]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

You dont have a clue, do you?
What do the Saw Quadrilogy have to do with the OP's topic?

Apparently you aren't very familier with him. He goes to all the active threads at any given time, and posts some stupid one-line sentance that normally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you look at the 'new posts' tab, at times, you'll see he is the most recent poster in say, 10 - 15 threads.

[owa]

I was happy that they cleaned up U-571 so you won't hear me complain about that one. I thought it looked good.

I didn't see any 40 Year Old Virgin reviews but here are some scores from other sites for U-571:

U-571 Blu-ray
High-Def Digest: PQ 4.5/5
DVD Authority: PQ 4.5/5
DVD Town: PQ 9/10
Home Theater Magazine: PQ 3.5/5
Home Theater Forum: PQ 4.5/5
AV Forums: PQ 9/10

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by BStecke

What's wrong with Transformers?

Yeah!

[cakefoo]

SPL: Kill Zone (Saat po long) review

Video Rating: 4.5

Reaction: This is rated as high as Indiana Jones KOTCS. Pfft. He says it has "pop," and that he doesn't notice "heavy DNR-" but DNR and EE is there, to make up for the overall lack of clarity and smoothness due to a very noisy and blurry picture. The only way I can imagine the score making any sense is if it were a very, very old movie and that was taken into consideration. But it's from 2005.

[cakefoo]

Movie: Hidden (Caché) Review

Video Rating: 5.0

Reviewer: Dr. Svet Atanasov

Quotes: "On this Blu-ray disc contrast is perfect, clarity stunning, and the color gradation outstanding. Furthermore, the image is so detailed that it literally feels as if the actors are acting right in front of you, in your very own room. I know that there are a lot of critics who, for a variety of different reasons, aren't always honest with their readers, so I would like to make this as clear as possible – the Blu-ray transfer for Caché is simply breathtaking. As far as the master source is concerned, and the manner in which it was transferred to Blu-ray, I can only echo what I’ve already noted above – I watched very closely to see whether or not there might be any imperfections, or external factors affecting the presentation, but I could not spot any dirt, specks, or debris. To sum it all up, this is rock-solid presentation of a fantastic film."

Reaction: This has to be one of the funniest things I've read today. All that detail that he swears he is seeing is just a result of someone CRANKing up the sharpness (pun intended). They also butchered the video compression about as much as they possibly could. This is a 2/5 at best. Even if it was the director's intent to make it look like it was filmed entirely on a stupid-cheap consumer-grade HD camcorder from the clearance rack at Walmart, it's still the director's intent that it look like a 2/5. But instead, he said nothing but over-excited praise about the quality and clarity.

Blu-ray.com, thanks for providing screens to accompany all your reviews. The review itself was unhelpful.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by cakefoo

Movie: Hidden (Caché) Review

Video Rating: 5.0

Reviewer: Dr. Svet Atanasov

Quotes: "On this Blu-ray disc contrast is perfect, clarity stunning, and the color gradation outstanding. Furthermore, the image is so detailed that it literally feels as if the actors are acting right in front of you, in your very own room. I know that there are a lot of critics who, for a variety of different reasons, aren't always honest with their readers, so I would like to make this as clear as possible – the Blu-ray transfer for Caché is simply breathtaking. As far as the master source is concerned, and the manner in which it was transferred to Blu-ray, I can only echo what I’ve already noted above – I watched very closely to see whether or not there might be any imperfections, or external factors affecting the presentation, but I could not spot any dirt, specks, or debris. To sum it all up, this is rock-solid presentation of a fantastic film."

Reaction: This has to be one of the funniest things I've read today. All that detail that he swears he is seeing is just a result of someone CRANKing up the sharpness (pun intended). They also butchered the video compression about as much as they possibly could. This is a 2/5 at best. Even if it was the director's intent to make it look like it was filmed entirely on a stupid-cheap consumer-grade HD camcorder from the clearance rack at Walmart, it's still the director's intent that it look like a 2/5. But instead, he said nothing but over-excited praise about the quality and clarity.

Blu-ray.com, thanks for providing screens to accompany all your reviews. The review itself was unhelpful.

Hello there,

Perhaps, the screengrabs do not entirely reveal the strength of the transfer. Cache, as you suggest, is a film where the director opted for a very specific look and I don't believe that cranking up the sharpness is what I had in mind when I addressed detail. Or depth.

Finally, I am not the only one who thinks that this disc looks solid:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...dvd_review.htm

ADDITION: Artificial Eye - Blu-ray - November 08': A dramatic improvement that I am happy to say resides on a region-FREE Blu-ray disc. The transfer doesn't give away too much of its HDCAM roots - looking a shade glossy at times, but detail has some strikingly detailed moments. The image quality also exhibits some healthy depth. The feature takes up about 20 Gig of space and I see no digital manipulations to enhance the picture. Black levels are piercing and colors (especially skin tones) seem far more true.

Pro-B

[cakefoo]

Sometimes I don't agree with any of the reviews. That particular reviewer says, "I see no digital manipulations to enhance the picture," and I'm just amazed that he can't see it.

Dark edges on the Remote and paper

The signs of sharpening are everywhere- like on the light strip on the parked police car on the right.

Also, yet another PQ issue is apparent in their gallery: Extreme blurriness along with interlacing artifacts

The halos themselves are only a couple pixels wide and are difficult to spot in motion. While some scenes change from shot to shot too fast for humans to pinpoint the evidence, the visual enhancement is all over the entire screen from top to bottom and the sharpening is being done on the entire picture, depending on the filter's threshold levels. Most movies do get sharpened to some extent and it's not usually a big deal because the filter's used incredibly sparingly. But never should they be able to use as much sharpening as was present in this Blu-ray and still get a 5/5. At least, that's my opinion.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by cakefoo

Sometimes I don't agree with any of the reviews. That particular reviewer says, "I see no digital manipulations to enhance the picture," and I'm just amazed that he can't see it.

Dark edges on the Remote and paper

The signs of sharpening are everywhere- like on the light strip on the parked police car on the right.

Also, yet another PQ issue is apparent in their gallery: Extreme blurriness along with interlacing artifacts

The halos themselves are only a couple pixels wide and are difficult to spot in motion. While some scenes change from shot to shot too fast for humans to pinpoint the evidence, the visual enhancement is all over the entire screen from top to bottom and the sharpening is being done on the entire picture, depending on the filter's threshold levels. Most movies do get sharpened to some extent and it's not usually a big deal because the filter's used incredibly sparingly. But never should they be able to use as much sharpening as was present in this Blu-ray and still get a 5/5. At least, that's my opinion.

First of all thank you for your comments. I certainly respect your opinion and hope to converse with you in the future.

This being said, however, there are a few things I would like to clarify, for the sake of knowing that we are on the same page.

I assume you are aware that the screen captures we provide for the reviews, and I would assume DVDBeaver as well, are just a general indicator as to what you should expect from the disc that is critiqued. With other words, they are not fully representative of the actual quality of the Blu-ray transfer.

Second, analyzing stills and drawing concussions as to how a film print is likely to look in motion is simply something that I don't find particularly logical. I am convinced you know why.

Third, the actual act of screencapturing could very well produce issues that appear as native on the captures but are not actually on the film print.

Finally, just like writing a synopsis for a film, and adding critical comments to it, is a very subjective endeavor, so is technical analysis. Allow me to offer a good example why - for many, during the years, the inherited "ghosting" PAL-NTSC DVD transfers reveal wasn't an issue. For me, it was a major cause for concern. In fact, it forced me to disagree with hundreds of reviews by very prominent reviewers.

Now, looking at your earlier post above, it seems like you were worried that the captures did not reveal the type of clarity I noted in my review, and you suggested that sharpness levels have been cranked up. I beg to differ, I carefully examined the AE disc yesterday, before I submitted the review and, suffice to say, I am firmly convinced that it is precisely detail and clarity that transform this disc into an exceptional offer. Which, coincidentally, happens to be the reason why Gary at DVDBEAVER believes that the disc is a substantial upgrade over the SDVD as well.

Thank you again for you your comments.

Pro-B

[Josh]

This is a big reason why we provide you with screen captures as well. The reviewer is reviewing how the picture looks in motion. You can then look at the screen captures and see how it looks still. You may not agree with the reviewers all the time, but we do provide you the tools to make a very well informed decision before purchase.

[cakefoo]

If you're a reviewer, the movie should be paused and examined every once in a while to look for halos. This way you know if the sharpness you have been seeing is natural or coaxed out artificially.

[Ben]

We are not going to engage in any more "Screenshot science" on this forum. It is a FACT that a still frame is not a good indicator of the overall quality of a blu-ray.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by cakefoo

If you're a reviewer, the movie should be paused and examined every once in a while to look for halos. This way you know if the sharpness you have been seeing is natural or coaxed out artificially.

With all due respect, why?

Blu-ray is touted as the medium capable of replicating the cinema experience as best as possible. When you go to the cinema do you ask the projectionist to pause the print every once in awhile to determine whether or not the replica print is of good quality?

Pro-B